Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35949263›Full record

ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology2022

Comparison of the mechanical properties and mechanical damages to tendon tissue in three suspensory fixation techniques.

Toshiya Kano, Masakazu Ishikawa, Yuki Ogawa, Hiroyuki Akebono, Atsushi Sugeta, Masato Ohmi, Goki Kamei, Atsuo Nakamae, Nobuo Adachi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Toshiya KanoDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Masakazu IshikawaDept. of Artificial Joints and Biomaterials, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yuki OgawaLab. of Strength and Fracture of Materials, Mechanical Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Hiroyuki AkebonoLab. of Strength and Fracture of Materials, Mechanical Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Atsushi SugetaLab. of Strength and Fracture of Materials, Mechanical Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Masato OhmiCourse of Health Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
Goki KameiDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Atsuo NakamaeDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Nobuo AdachiDept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Hiroshima University · JPOsaka Health Science University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is the most common traumatic injury to the knee joint. Suspensory fixation has become popular in ACL reconstruction because of its high primary stability, less invasiveness, and surgical convenience. There are two common types of suspensory fixation devices: those with fixed-length and those with adjustable-length loops. Owing to structural differences and differences in initial tensioning techniques, it is expected that mechanical property and damage to the tendons will vary from device to device; however, no literature has examined this so far. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the damage caused to the tendon by three different suspensory fixation devices. An effective mechanical test was carried out as a prerequisite. Methods: First, the mechanical properties of simple loop device (SLD) as fixed-length loop device, first-generation, and second-generation adjustable devices (AD1 and AD2) as adjustable-length loop devices were tested (isolated device testing). Second, each device was tested using bovine extensor tendons (specimen testing). Cyclic testing included 2000 cycles; the devices were subsequently displaced until failure, and the ultimate tensile strength was determined using isolated device testing. Six samples of 3 devices were used in each testing experiment. After specimen testing, the surface structure of the tendon was evaluated quantitatively using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and our original histological scoring system. Results: During isolated device testing, SLD demonstrated the least cyclic displacement, followed by AD1 and AD2. The highest ultimate tensile strength was observed in AD2, followed by SLD and AD1. In specimen testing, the least cyclic displacement was observed in SLD, followed by AD1 and AD2. Histologically, AD1 demonstrated a significantly lower score, with damaged surface morphology, than SLD and AD2. OCT values were significantly higher, with a more disturbing tendon surface structure, in AD1 than in SLD and AD2. Conclusions: The first-generation adjustable loop device exhibited greatest graft tissue damage at the suspensory site in a clinically relevant setting. The thinner adjustable loop mechanism may have elevated graft damage by frictional stresses during loop adjustment or by repetitive tensioning stresses.

Indexed as

Anterior cruciate ligamentOptical coherence tomographySuspensory fixation deviceTendon damage

Identifiers

PMID35949263
PMCPMC9343929
OpenAlexW4288949247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.